IAS DECISIONS (2025 onwards, until - we hope - they are banned)

patient_dream

ACCORD DISPUTE RESOLUTION LTD

A shared office and registered corporate address used by multiple businesses and organizations.

This is not an approved ADR hiding behind an address used by other companies.

Is this yet another Hurley deception ?

How can you have what seems to be a husband and wife team operate an ADR scheme …. it's a joke which is the norm where Hurley is involved. What part does Davies of Gladstones play?

HURLEY and his ideas should be banned from being an ATA for life. How many people have paid good money because the Hurley, next desk along IAS has ruled in favour of parking companies ?

Hurley should be struck off being a company director and struck off the SRA

WHAT WILL THE CMA DO NOW ?

We all know that Hurley / IPC is NOT fit for purpose

Umkomaas

Is this the same bloke?

https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/228889/david-gareth-finney

Seemingly an employee of the Crown Prosecution Service - a civil servant. Strict rules about part time jobs, as well as conflicts of interest for civil servants.

patient_dream

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092097#Comment_82092097

It seems the same man working from a a PO Box type scam

I wonder who set up this fake ADR ??

Answers on a postage stamp

Even more reason to investigate Davies and Hurley by the CMA

LeafyGreen03

As requested please see the full decision from the IAS, with regard to my post from today 'Gemini Parking - Lost Transaction/ Evidence ignored by IAS'.

'The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
In all appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the operator fails to establish that the Parking Charge was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an appeal will be allowed. If the operator does establish that a Parking Charge was properly and lawfully issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued. If the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the appeal will be allowed.
However, the appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a proper decision.
The Appellant in this case contends that the Parking Charge should not have been issued as he assumed that the card he used to pay with had successfully paid for parking.
For some reason there was an issue and the payment was not properly transacted.
I am satisfied that the fact that no payment was made is more likely to be attributable to the Appellant rather than the operator, and this satisfies me that the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued.
This appeal therefore has to be dismissed.'

patient_dream

No suprise, the 95% computer says NO Adjudicator 

The IAS is not fit for purpose and very anti the consumer

Hopefully enter the CMA or government to ban them

Coupon-mad

"I am satisfied that the fact that no payment was made is more likely to be attributable to the Appellant rather than the operator,"

Wow!

A prolix 'decision' followed by only one line that's actually about your appeal reasons, and they dismiss your clear evidence and choose to blame you and side with their paymasters.

IMHO this is utter scammery by anonymous rookie legals, who are plainly not impartial.

This despite the evidence you had from the bank thar shows that the transaction existed and was authorised by you.

And on the day, you saw it as a 'pending' charge and your bank later informed you that they could see the transaction but that it had been cancelled after 4 days because Gemini failed to collect the funds from them. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6679471/gemini-parking-lost-transaction-evidence-ignored-by-ias

imgoneagainpromise

Asked by @Coupon-mad, another failed IAS Appeal.

(girlfriend bought a parking ticket for wrong car, they won’t have any of it)

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties, but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies, and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site. These make it clear any driver not paying for the duration of their vehicle's stay, with a full accurate registration, will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant claims that their girlfriend paid to park and paid for her own vehicle and not the correct vehicle. They have provides evidence to support the claims. The evidence is that of a ticket, but not that there is a relationship to the vehicle. As explained above, at this stage, the onus is on the Appellant to satisfy me the charge is unlawful. In the absence of any evidence, I am not satisfied. 

The Appellant relies upon Annex F.3 of the Single Code of Practice. I accept that the circumstances described are of a type capable of falling within F.3(a), which includes a motorist paying the tariff but entering the registration of another vehicle from their household. However, the reduction provided by F.3 is subject to appropriate evidence being provided and applies only where, amongst other requirements, no independent appeal has been lodged.

The Appellant produced the parking ticket showing that payment had been made against another vehicle registration and stated that this was their girlfriend's vehicle. However, no evidence was provided establishing the asserted connection with that vehicle. The Operator did not therefore apply the reduction provided by F.3.

The Appellant raises an issue as to the Operator's handling of that aspect of the first-stage appeal. Annex F recognises that, where evidence is lacking, it may be appropriate for an Operator to request additional evidence before finalising its decision. Whether the Operator's handling of the first-stage appeal complied with the requirements of the Code is not a matter for me to determine in this appeal. The Appellant may raise that issue as a complaint with the IPC, as the Operator's Accredited Trade Association.

It does not, however, provide a basis upon which I can allow this appeal. The £20 reduction under F.3 expressly applies only where no independent appeal has been lodged. The matter is now at the independent appeal stage and my role is to determine liability for the Parking Charge.

The parking terms required the tariff to be paid against the correct vehicle registration. Although the Appellant has established that a payment was made, that payment was registered against a different vehicle. If the circumstances were as described, the Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not mitigating factors. 

The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle leaving the land they manage, forty-five minutes after it arrived, and without a payment for this vehicle. The appeal is dismissed.

patient_dream

Just another "protection appeal for an IPC member"

So, the PPC knows the actual car did not pay. BUT …. PAYMENT was made on a reg number they have no record of and they accepted the amount paid regardless

This is a major flaw, do they balance their books …. NO

This is standard junk for the IAS who protect their members. Has the PPC refunded the wrong VRN number, of course not, they have no record of the wrong VRN but accept a payment

Sadly the IAS don't have a clue and that is why they should be banned from producing their rubbish

kryten3000

This isn't the full decision, it comes from a post on the Facebook group "50 Shades of Halifax":

"SPREAD THE WORD: HOW TO BEAT THE EXCEL PARKING TRAP AT PENNINE RETAIL PARK / UMRAH SUPERMARKET
lf you have received a £100 parking ticket from Excel Parking Services at the Pennine Retail Park (Umrah Supermarket side) in Halifax, DO NOT JUST PAY IT!! have just officially won my Independent Appeals Service (IAS) tribunal against them, and the adjudicator exposed a massive flaw in Excel's system that could help hundreds of local drivers get their fines cancelled. The Flaw Exposed:Excel's ANPR cameras blindly clock cars coming in and out of the main entrance. However, the adjudicator explicitly noted that the Pennine Centre car park can ONLY be accessed by driving through the Umrah Supermarket section. Because Excel's cameras cannot prove whether you actually parked in an Umrah bay or just drove through to get to the other side, their legal basis for the fine completely collapses. Here is the exact wording from my official IAS Adjudicator victory:

"The site plan submitted by the operator shows that the Pennine Centre car park can only be accessed by driving through the Umrah Supermarket car park. The operator has submitted no evidence regarding ANPR camera angles and whether the passage of a vehicle ito the Pennine centre car park would also be caught on the camera so as to avoid a parking Charge being issued improperly... the operator has failed to establish that the Parking Charge was properly issued. Accordingly I am allowing this appeal."

What to do if you get caught in this trap: Do not ignore it, but do not pay it. Appeal to Excel first. When they inevitably reject it, take it to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).Use this exact defense: State that you were simply passing through the Umrah car park to access the Pennine Centre side, and challenge Excel to prove via camera angles that your car actually stationary-parked in their zone. They can't.Please share this with anyone you know who shops down there. Let's stop them taking money from Halifax residents using a flawed camera system!"

This image shows the divide in the car park. Excel previously managed everything apart from the 8 or so spaces circled. When the Umrah supermarket opened, it looks like Excel agreed to split the car park in two along the yellow line.

kryten3000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092222#Comment_82092222

Perhaps we should ask Channel 4 News to do an undercover investigation that might capture the IPC leadership celebrating excessive PCNs being issued while sipping black velvet and necking oysters or whatever the Cheshire equivalent is. We can live in hope.